Clinton decision on Bosnia

The Clinton administration has recklessly blurred the clear and prudent line it once drew against using American ground forces in combat in Bosnia.

Wednesday the president declared that he would respond favorably to any NATO request for American troops to help reposition the U.N. peacekeeping forces there. Such a mission could easily open the way to direct American involvement in the fighting, if, for example, the Bosnian Serbs chose to disrupt the U.N. redeployment.

Until now, the administration had insisted that American ground troops would only be used to evacuate the U.N. peacekeepers from Bosnia or to police a negotiated peace that all sides committed themselves to observe. Those missions, though entailing risks, would be defined and limited. Plunging into a redeployment mission would be an invitation to open-ended combat in U.N. operations whose goals and methods seem to change almost daily.

The administration deludes itself if it really believes it could execute some kind of quick in-and-out ground deployment. What if American soldiers were surrounded or held hostage, as nearly 400 U.N. soldiers were last weekend? Surely they would not be abandoned to their fate to meet a predetermined Pentagon exit schedule.

It may seem unfair to resist exposing American soldiers to the risks that troops from other nations already face. But it would be even more unfair to thrust Americans into dangers that are justified by no vital interest of the United States.

Serbian atrocities against civilians are an affront to civilized values. That is why Washington has involved itself diplomatically and through limited NATO air strikes. But two successive administrations have rightly judged that America's direct interest in the conflict is insufficient to justify sending American troops for ground combat.

Europe's interests are more directly involved. Britain and France, two of Western Europe's main military powers, are already present on the ground in Bosnia, along with Russia and more than a dozen other nations.

These countries have sufficient military resources to handle the humanitarian and protective mandate the United Nations has given them.

Wednesday Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali proposed several options for continuing the U.N. mission, including more muscular enforcement of U.N. resolutions, possibly under multinational command.

But the United Nations is not capable of fighting a war on its own, and Washington should not be sinking rashly into a widening conflict.

The best course now is for countries that already have ground troops in Bosnia to reinforce their garrisons and redeploy those in the most vulnerable positions to safer ground. If it should turn out that they still face intolerable risks, the United States remains ready to assist in evacuation.

There is no middle course and no other legitimate use for American combat troops.

-- The New York Times